1. Ghulam Hussain, aged 50 years, after being convicted under Section 376 RFC vide impugned judgement dated 6th of October, 2008 passed by learned Principal Sessions judge, Poonch and sentenced to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 8000/-, in default thereof to further undergo simple imprisonment for six months, when could not engage his counsel for filing an appeal before this court, High Court Legal Services Committee, Jammu/Srinagar engaged Mr. H.A. Siddiqui, Advocate to defend his case. Hence this appeal through Mr. Siddiqui. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 24-04-2005, the 'victim', a lady of more than 75 years of age (name not being disclosed), had boarded the last bus at Drungali to Bandi Chechian, a place enroute to the 'Ziarat' and when the 'victim' deboarded the bus on reaching village Bandi Chechian, it was late. She being a stranger to the area enquired about the location and road to the 'Ziarat' from her co-passengers. The appellant came forward and pretended himself to be a devotee of the 'Ziarat' and assured her that he is acquainted with the area and shall guide her to the 'Ziarat'. The 'victim' trusted him and joined him towards the 'Ziarat', It is then the case of the 'victim' that when they were enroute to the 'Ziarat', and reached a deserted place, the appellant overpowered her and taking benefit of the deserted location, forcibly pushed the 'victim' on the ground and committed the act of sexual assault (rape) upon her against her will and consent. When the 'victim' raised hue and cry, the appellant fled away from the scene. She then reached a water mill enroute to the 'Ziarat' where she narrated the incident to its occupant, namely, PW-Rashid. She also reported the matter to other persons, who inturn informed the police at the 'Ziarat', which apprehended the appellant and brought him to the 'Ziarat'. The investigation in this case was conducted by PW Mohd. Sikander, who recorded the statement of the 'victim', prepared the docket and sent it to the police Station, Poonch, which culminated into registration of FIR No. 35 of 2005 under Section 376 RFC. After completion of the investigation, the challan was filed against the appellant, who consequently was charged under Section 376 RPC for which he now stands convicted and sentenced as stated hereinabove. 3. Heard Mr. Siddiqui and Mr. After completion of the investigation, the challan was filed against the appellant, who consequently was charged under Section 376 RPC for which he now stands convicted and sentenced as stated hereinabove. 3. Heard Mr. Siddiqui and Mr. Basotra, Perused the trial court record minutely. 4. Although Mr. Siddiqui has not assailed the impugned judgement vigorously on merits of the case and primarily confined his prayer with regard to reduction in the quantum of sentence only on certain grounds, yet, I being the court of 1st Appeal, have gone through the entire prosecution case minutely and of the view that there is no weakness on any count in it, so as to disturb the finding of guilt already recorded. 5. Not only the unshattered evidence of the prosecutrix is enough to prove the charge of rape against the appellant to the hilt, the prosecution case on other aspects is also proved from the statement of PW-3 Mohd. Rashid, PW-8 Farooq Khurshid, PW-10 Mohd. Zaffar. 6. The medical evidence on record and already proved by Dr. Sanjoka ta Kapoor is also indicative of the fact that intercourse had taken place with the prosecutrix within 24 hours of her examination. 7. The investigation conducted by PW-14 Mohd. Sikander (then ASI) is also without any flaw. Although the appellant has come up with a defence that he was falsely implicated in a case by PW-10 Mohd. Zaffar, who is inimical to him, but the said defence hinges on a very tenuous thread and does not brittle the convincing statement of the 'victim'. 8. I do not feel the necessity of delving deep into the discussion with the entire evidence led by the prosecution as the material evidence has been re-scanned by me. 9. As an upshot of the aforesaid discussion, the conviction of the appellant for the charge of Section 376 RPC is up-held. 10. Reverting to the quantum of sentence. Mr, Siddiqui fairly submits that if one goes by the allegations of the prosecution case, the present case turns out to be of very serious nature as the appellant had committed sexual violence, that too with an aged lady of about 75 years, but when appreciated on its own individual facts, it calls for reduction of the sentence by recording special and adequate reasons for the same. 11. According to Mr. 11. According to Mr. Siddiqui, one of the main reason borne out from the record itself is that, when the prosecutrix had stepped into the witness box and deposed against the appellant, the trial court had noted that the accused (appellant) was standing in an ashamed position, bending his head downwards. There is a specific note in this regard. The 'victim' had also deposed that when the police had arrested the appellant and brought him to the 'Ziarat' where she had identified him, he was ashamed for his act and was in the same ashamed position as he was in the court. Mr. Siddiqui has drawn my attention to that part of the evidence available from the statement (examination-in-chief) of the 'victim'. From this, Mr. Siddiqui wants to ; develop that the appellant was infact repenting within himself about his shameful act and that is the reason that during the trial, he stood in an ashamed position, bending his head downward. This repentance can be considered as one of the special and adequate reason for awarding less than the minimum doze of sentence. 12. Mr. Siddiqui then submits that another factor may also tilt in his favour is that after his conviction, he did not engage any counsel and ultimately, High Court Legal Services Committee provided him legal assistance. This also indicates that he was repenting upon his shameful act and punishing himself for his misdeed, He, in any case, by now has undergone five years and 10 months of substantive sentence out of seven years and if some remissions are included, his case, perhaps should be ripe for release from the jail. Therefore, according to Mr. Siddiqui, the present case calls for reducing the sentence to the period already undergone. 13. Mr. Basotra on the other hand submits that it is a case of showing no sympathy to the appellant on account of his act and, therefore, he deserves the maximum sentence as already awarded by the trial court. He then submits that remissions are not granted in a case of rape under Jail Manual. 14. Mo doubt, the appellant by now has undergone a substantial period of substantive sentence (about six years) and the total sentence slapped upon him is seven years, still the arguments advanced by Mr. Siddiqui for reducing the sentence in this very case do not convince me. 15. 14. Mo doubt, the appellant by now has undergone a substantial period of substantive sentence (about six years) and the total sentence slapped upon him is seven years, still the arguments advanced by Mr. Siddiqui for reducing the sentence in this very case do not convince me. 15. The courts are expected to properly operate sentence system by keeping in view the prestige, race, caste or creed of the accused or 'victim'. Reduction of sentence may not disturb the social fabric is also one of the considerations while examining the case on quantum of sentence, that too in the case of rape. Undoubt­edly, sexual violence is a serious blow to the honour and dignity of a female. It leaves behind a traumatic experience. The courts are, therefore, expected to deal with the cases of sexual crime against woman with utmost sensitivity. While we are celebrat­ing 'Womens Right' in all spheres, it becomes the duty of the court to show all concern for her honour also. 16. In the case at hand, the 'victim' wanted to go to the 'Ziarat'. It is a seat of spiritual bliss, which is visited by the devotees from all walks of life for paying obeisance. The 'victim' was of the age of the mother of the appellant, who asked for some help for going to 'Ziarat', which was extended by the appellant and she accepted the same. She could not even imagine in her wildest dreams that she woulcj fall prey at the hands of the appellant for satisfying his sexual lust while enroute to 'Ziarat'. What a shameful act Undoubtedly, it has left serious psychological impact upon the 'victim', who is in her 80's and has become a cause for raising fingers for none of her fault. The act has proved to be absolutely destructive for rest of her life. Appreciating the case from that angle, in my view, the appellant does not deserve even the least sympathy of this court in reduction of the sentence already slapped upon him. 17. The net result is that the present appeal stands dismissed on both the counts, upholding the conviction and the sentence as already recorded by the trial court. The fine, if deposited, shall be given to the Victim' of this case.